Forum:Official proposal - term limits for MA administrators
Original Proposal Following on from this discussion, I am now officially proposing a system to help ensure all administrators remain fair and impartial. I propose the following: *Nominations for adminship occur twice a year, for example in January and again in July. *Any admin nominated remains "in office" for a maximum of one year and will need to be reaffirmed after their time has expired. *There must be a minimum number of votes required for adminship to be bestowed/reaffirmed. *In the run up to admin nominations, there will be an MA-wide announcement with a dedicated page where current admins can present their reasoning for reaffirmation and their ideas for the wiki moving forward. During this period, existing users will also be invited to question admins on their ideas and how they will solve any issues that may arise. *Current admins and prospective nominees may invite other users to vote for them or simply garner interest in the nominations themselves. As it currently stands, all admins, once successful, remain admins for life. There is no incentive for an admin to maintain a high standard or abuse their "powers." By implementing a term limit, they will know that their standards of adminship will be scrutinised come voting day. This would also have the added impact of creating a community event twice yearly where everyone can get involved to decide who should be administering "our" wiki. I appreciate any polite comments you may have. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:23, September 14, 2011 (UTC) Discussion :I disagree with this idea for the following reasons: :*A wiki is not a democracy, and should not be run like one. It shouldn't be a popularity contest. :*I would be hesitant to involve non-regular users in the process who are not familiar with it and not familiar with why such an event is taking place or the reasons behind it. There are better ways to generate community interest- that should not be the goal of the admin process. :*It is too open to abuse by those with personal grudges or issues with a particular admin. We already have users accusing admins of acting together as a secretive group- the same could happen with users, who would secretly get together and gang up on an admin, not because they don't deserve to be one, but because they don't like them. A way to counteract that - requiring a lot of votes- would not work as we don't have that many users(and we shouldn't attract them to such a situation as I described above) and it still is open to dissatisfied users ganging up on people. :*Who would moderate such a forum? :I would add that even Wikipedia does not have a user-based process to remove their admin's status that different from what we do now(discuss it).--31dot 23:40, September 14, 2011 (UTC) ::While I oppose Trekfan's idea, do we actually have a process for removing admin's status? --OuroborosCobra talk 23:48, September 14, 2011 (UTC) :No. I remember discussing one two years ago but nothing came of it. I would still be open to a removal process of some sort(not necessarily with the criteria on that old page I wrote) but I disagree with the idea of consistent renominations or term limits.--31dot 23:52, September 14, 2011 (UTC) :::{many edit conflicts; this was originally in reply to 31dot's first post here)Well, what else are regular users meant to do if there's a gross miscarriage of justice carried out by the admins at large?! That is not to suggest the acting-as-a-group thing but the complete opposite – the omission of action by a group, without organizing that action, but with each member of the group still carrying out the same lack of action. What other alternative is there, for the regular users? Suggesting an alternative would likely be far more productive than just dismissing (albeit with reasonings) a suggestion, 31dot. --Defiant 23:57, September 14, 2011 (UTC) :The previous discussion on the removal policy I suggested two years ago is here. :Without carrying too much of the other discussion to this page, I think that it got out of hand and would have benefited from a cool-down period after which all parties could have discussed the issue calmly, without attitudes or accusations(valid or otherwise). That's what should be happening. I could envision having some sort of vote for removal or other sanction- but creating a bureaucracy based on popularity and unnecessary repetition(for "good" admins) isn't the answer.--31dot 00:05, September 15, 2011 (UTC) I disagree that this would lead to a popularity contest. It is a basic expectation that an admin should be a polite, friendly, approachable person. If they are the complete opposite, then people aren't going to think much of them and thus perhaps wouldn't vote for them. --| TrekFan Open a channel 00:14, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :::I agree, and also think we should include the rule about omitting non-regular users from the proceedings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there'd be any problem with that aspect. Anyways, thanks for your input, 31dot. I do agree with you about the "cooling off period," and that's what I've requested on the other page. DC evidently isn't doing any "cooling off" (to my mind, understandably so), but still.... --Defiant 00:19, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :With text-based communication, what is polite and friendly is a matter of opinion- and this whole discussion has involved accusations of rudeness where, if looked at a different way, there isn't any. Anyway, my main concern is that any removal process should be on a case by case basis and not a regular basis.--31dot 00:23, September 15, 2011 (UTC) CONFLICT - @Defiant: OK, yeah I understand the user comment. Perhaps we could include a restriction akin to that in the FA nomination policy? Something along the lines of "any registered user who has been an active member of Memory Alpha for at least the past month, with an additional 100 significant edits to their name" perhaps? --| TrekFan Open a channel 00:25, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :::Yeah, something like that would be good. @31dot: "Accusations of rudeness" doesn't really apply to me. My issues are with infractions of the policies and guidelines. As I clearly outline (with proof) on the other page, Archduk3 has repeatedly broken the policies and guidelines (this, despite my genuine extreme respect for him as an editor). I'm doing my utmost to not bring my personal views into this – the policies and guidelines are paramount in my mind right now, as they should be to you too (not that they're not). --Defiant 00:54, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :I think a case-by-case process would be more beneficial in instances similar to this one and less prone to abuse and use as a popularity contest in such an instance, such as the suggested policy I wrote two years ago(link is above-I'm really not trying to toot my own horn here, it was a starting point) --31dot 00:58, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :::I had actually read all through that. I found it to be an interesting read, and quite productive. Also noteworthy is this page; were there any objections/suggested changes, etc. to it, and is there any now? --Defiant 01:08, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :There weren't too many; Cid raised a few at the bottom of the discussion. I responded to them but it didn't really seem to go anywhere after that. Just got lost, I guess. --31dot 01:17, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :::I'd like to throw this open to TrekFan and Distantlycharmed too (if I may), since you've already supported the version outlined here. Would you have any problem(s) with implementing this version, or would you support it as well? --Defiant 01:51, September 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::conflict - The real reason for this is obvious, so why dance around it? I've spoken a number of times about increasing the number of admins and removing inactive ones, but never as a cover to remove piticular admins because I have a grudge, like the users here clearly have and are doing. This is just trying to politicizing the admin position to override the point and purpose of it. If TrekFan would turn down that position to make a point, as backward as that point may be, why in the hell do you expect any of us to play along with this insincere suggestion that does nothing but do what you can't acomplish elsewhere, and for good reason I might add, to get revenge on the admins who don't agree with you? - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 02:01, September 15, 2011 (UTC) Archduk3, I have never once expressed a desire to become an admin nor do I wish to become one now. I'm sure if you go back far enough you will see multiple instances of where I have voiced my opinion regarding some (not all) of the admins on this site and their attitudes towards other users. The fact that it has now received more widespread discussion and support (from at least two other users) serves to highlight my prior beliefs and observations during my time here. --| TrekFan Open a channel 02:10, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :::As I've explained, this is entirely impersonal, on my part, too; you have absolutely no grounds to suggest otherwise, Archduk. This is not personally about you by any means, unlike the other page. In accordance with the guideline of assuming good faith, you should not be taking everything so personally. In fact, whatever happens with your particular case of repeated policy-breaking, I think it would be in MA's best interest to have something like this. While reading the pages 31dot helpfully linked to, I was reminded of how I kind of let MA administratorship go to my head; it was like there was nothing to stop me. I've learned the error of my ways, but I believe that provides a good precedent for how this system can be a good tool. --Defiant 02:24, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :::It feels like it takes a lot of courage to admit that. Anyways, it just so happens that your case is fairly recent. However much it's linked to this or not, I'm quite sure other, similar cases will crop up in due course; it's certainly not the first time admins have been guilty of rule-breaking (in reference to both myself and others), as we're all Human... at the end of the day. This procedure should therefore be valuable when admins do screw up. --Defiant 02:43, September 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::@TrekFan - I would hardly call the same people involved in the other discussion "widespread", and I'm well aware of your opinions of the admins here, you even thanked me for being one of the good ones this year, but let's not pretend this is unrelated and not directly motivated by the lack of a consensus to "punish" me or the other admins who don't agree with you. The assumption of abuse is right there in the reasoning, despite the fact that there is no consensus that there was abuse and that you didn't add a "not" in front of it. I know that a consensus can remove me, or anyone else for that matter, from this position, and creating a system to override that is nothing but what I've already said it is. ::::@Defiant - I doubt that. Are we to let a vandal run free in the database because the first page they vandalized is the page of the only admin around at the time? Are we to let trolls keep trolling because they personally attacked every active admin? The spirit is more important than the letter, even if you have already decided I'm guilty. You have opposed past discussions on this simply on the grounds that removing inactive admins is "unfair" to the time lords in out mist, so I certainly entitled to my opinion here, which I will not change as long as this remain the last bastion of a fail attempt to do what you can't do elsewhere. ::::If either of you were interested in this really, you would be pushing for more admins, not less, since "the more people that participate in the system, the better". If anything, only admins should be allowed to discuss the removal of another admin, since they are the only people on here who are entrusted to uphold the "rules" by the wider community in a unanimous vote before enforcing those rules may have made them unpopular with those that break them, and their friends. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 03:25, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :::::The only thing I'd like to add is that this: "an admin should be a polite, friendly, approachable person" simply is not the complete description of an admin. An admin is also the guy who is supposed to maintain order on the wiki - by removing content we don't allow, by keeping vandals in check, by dealing with trolls. All of this includes eventually telling people off and being (somewhat) unfriendly to those who deserve it because of their actions. If being an admin becomes a constant popularity contest, this will interfere with the job description. -- Cid Highwind 09:13, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :I'll second that. I've seen it asked of what people should do if they feel "wronged" by an admin- they should talk about it, like has been done before(a little talking about it led Defiant to surrender his powers). I don't mind writing such a policy down if done the right way- but the policy proposed here isn't the way to do it. I also think that if people are interested in doing so we should let this cool off for a little bit before we take it up(perhaps on the original discussion page)--31dot 09:40, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :::Essentially, words seem to be being put in other people's mouths; Cid, did TrekFan say the polite & friendly thing was the only condition of being an admin?! Not at all, can't find that description anywhere. Did he say admins should consistently be polite and friendly, whatever happens, to completely everyone?! No, I can't find that either. @Archduk; I find your first three sentences, "I doubt that" to "personally attacked every admin," quite hard to understand (you doubt what?) and, again, they're full of notions I didn't suggest. As you can see from my above posts, I have actually been concerned about "gross miscarriages of justice," so how you got from that to thinking that I'm in favor of them completely baffles me. I strongly suggest you follow the guideline of taking some cool off time, since a lot of your interpretations of what I'm trying to communicate are so far off the mark! Do other users interpret what I'm saying in such a faulty way, I wonder(?) I haven't "decided" you're guilty; that much is a fact, which I've proven. To repeatedly block users prematurely and ignore the "assume good faith" guideline is breaking the rules. Can't you see that?! Also, your argument about my having opposed such discussions previously doesn't stand up to scrutiny, either; people change, and that seems to be another fact you're just gonna have to learn to accept. --Defiant 09:59, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :::::Please take some of your own medicine, Defiant. I just noted that the description that had been given before was incomplete, because I thought it was important to mention that. So what if the original author didn't claim it to be? - it's not as if I attacked TrekFan for consciously trying to hide the whole truth about admins, or something. Also, this whole (unfounded) claim about "repeatedly blocking users prematurely" has been the point of the other thread - let's keep it there unless you want this thread to go the way of the dodo fast, too. -- Cid Highwind 10:09, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :::Okay. It just seems Archduk3 is in denial about something I've already proved, over there. If you require more evidence, I'll be happy to supply that on the other page. Also, you're right – I may have been quick to judge your reply to TrekFan. On the other hand, you could have made more clear your reasonings that you were only noting that the descriptions were incomplete. You might note that I made a similar mistake (not being clear enough) on the other page, so it's a pretty easy mistake to make. --Defiant 10:16, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :::Anyways, I did say "seems" to be putting words in others' mouths. --Defiant 10:43, September 15, 2011 (UTC) I'm on my way out so I have to respond quickly - @Cid, I didn't say that was the only quality required. I was responding to your popularity contest argument in that yes admins had to be polite, friendly and approachable. Although, even when dealing with spammers/trolls, it is still possible to maintain that politeness. @Archduk3, the discussion is about your recent conduct over the past few months. I posted that message in January when I did think you did a good job. That has since deteriorated into what has ultimately been described here and in the past forum discussion. --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:55, September 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Could we please make an effort to stay on topic and stop diverting from the issue by bringing in accusations, ad hominem attacks and other stuff? I thought we agreed to that, didnt we? Anyway, I am frankly flabbergasted that in the 21st century we are actually sitting there debating with people why a democratic system based on proper checks and balances to insure the highest standards and prevent abuse and complacency by those in power is a good thing. I mean really? That we are even having an argument about that, like this was debatable, is truly beyond me. for clarification, the recent debate about admins abusing their privileges precipitated this discussion and the need for a system in which people are held accountable. Period. Currently there is no accountability and people who are being abused have no recourse and they get discouraged after a while coming here - unless they agree with admins on everything of course. So let me summarize why the proposal would be very helpful to all of us. (Some of it I am repeating since the discussion was moved) ::::::1) Any democratic system requires a system of checks and balances in place whereby those who are in power positions, such as admins in this case, do not get to just do whatever they like without any repercussions since they are locked in their lifetime appointments. Yes, repercussions exist but it would have to be a truly appalling transgression at this point to get an admin disciplined. ::::::2) Admins currently have little to no incentive to maintain a high standard pertaining to their own conduct since there are no adverse consequences to their actions. ::::::3) Yes, there exists a mechanism by which admins can be stripped off their rights, but it is more of a confrontational/adversarial process whereby someone has to bring up "charges" or accusations and wait for others to vote - the end results being what we have seen with the recent incident. It is like electing a president for life until someone decides to impeach him, which is very hard. But how much better is a system in which he is elected every so many years so that those who believe he isnt doing a good job can vote on it in a democratic process. ::::::4) The suggested plan by TrekFan seems more proactive, less adversarial and as he stated it would also help in maintenance and just keeping the system up to date with admins who are no longer active or dont wish to be admins. ::::::5) As to the popularity contest issue: Electing admins frankly is a popularity contest. Someone who does a great job technically and knows a lot but whose personality is hated by others is not gonna become an admin. We have seen that time and again on here where people did not become admins on personal grounds/issues someone else had with them. So that argument is moot. ::::::6) If we are a community and we have elected "officials" it is only fair that said officials be held accountable and to certain standards and currently there is no such system in place. There just isnt. And i mean real accountability - not the "go look up the rules" accountability currently in place. Currently the system is biased, adversarial and it is next to impossible to discipline abusive admins. People (other admins, contributors etc) arent confrontational for the most part, they dont wanna have to take sides and start the "process" of having to "look into it" etc. Every way you look at it, it is a very one sided system and it needs some kind of "reform". Distantlycharmed 17:25, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :::::Yeah, I'm flabbergasted, too - flabbergasted about how you request that others "stop diverting from the topic", only to claim the same stuff again as if the whole discussion inbetween was invalid or didn't happen in the first place. If that's not a diversion, I don't know what is... :::::So, again, and in less than 3.5KB text: we're discussing (and for the most part opposing) this suggestion exactly because we believe that it would not install "proper checks and balances" and "prevent abuse", but quite the opposite. -- Cid Highwind 17:52, September 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::::See, again, you just cannot stay on topic can you? Anyway, just STOP IT ok? Stop the getting personal and putting people on the defense by making those snide remarks that make it look like people are stupid and "dont get it" because they dont agree with you or their thought processes dont resonate with yours. Just please STOP. You do that all the time. This type of making your way through a debate isnt going to resolve anything if you havent noticed. It just creates bad blood. And dont misrepresent my position. I am the only one pretty much who stayed on topic since a while here, summarizing the need and importance for such a system, as it went under amongst all the bickering and accusing and obfuscation. And frankly from what I have seen about the "discussions" above it has mostly been either people, driven by their emotions of recent events, dismissing good points and arguing as to why they should keep their power positions for life and not be asked to be really held accountable or the "he said\she said" stuff of bickering over semantics to change the topic from admin accountability to their own person. I made my points and if you want to refute them by making sound arguments that dont involve some backhanded remark, please do it but dont make remarks like "oh you just dont get it, look at you, I am so flabbergasted too at how you dont get it". Your behavior is exactly why we need such a system in place. You are rude and you make way too many underhanded remarks around here which mostly go under. I am going to suspect that most people who opposed the issue probably didnt want to bother reading through what you call the "discussions" - way too many side topics and bickering for the general audience to keep track of and be involved in. That is why I stayed out. Distantlycharmed 18:33, September 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::So what you're saying DC is that all those people opposing this are simply too stupid and easy confused to follow this discussion, or too lazy to read it. I don't think so. I'm pretty sure they're all smart enough to see this is a bad idea suggested by people with an ulterior motive, and it will do nothing but the opposite of what you claim it will do. Cid is on topic, it's just not going the way you hoped it would, and since you've just insulted everyone who doesn't agree with you, maybe you still need to sit this out. - 18:45, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :::::::I dont agree with the proposal because I think it would be much simpler to simply vote an admin out of his or her adminship if we feel he has behaved badly. --Pseudohuman 19:13, September 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::::No Duke, on the contrary. Expecting accountability by people so they dont abuse their power is not informed by ulterior, evil motives as you imply. Since you have, according to yourself and your friends around here, been behaving like a model admin then I think you shouldnt have anything to worry about right? I dont recall this as being about you, this is a general proposal precipitated by an incident - just like most policies, statues and laws in life. Some event happens that necessitates the need for reform. I also dont think people who opposed are too stupid to understand (your words, btw, not mine), I think that the volume and level of bickering is just something they probably didnt want to deal with and maybe just glanced over it and decided on a no to get it over it. ::::::@ Pseudohuman: Good point and I thought that too but dont you think the act of voting an admin out of office is just adversarial and confrontational and realistically only happens in cases of severe misconduct? As in it wouldnt be a substitute for ensuring they are admin material? Administrating, at least on MA, is more than just site maintenance, it is leadership and when there are little repercussions for bad behavior, those who lead might easily succumb to complacency. Also, it's important to keep in mind that this is not just about voting out of "office", it is about finding ways to discipline as voting out of office should be the last resort if you ask me. As someone stated previously, it is more the spirit of this that is important. Some kind of accountability system other than "you can be kicked out of office". Distantlycharmed 19:36, September 15, 2011 (UTC) :I'd like to respond to some of DC's points above: :1)This isn't a democratic system, so we shouldn't compare it to one. It should take an appalling transgression to strip someone of their status- one that could not have been resolved amicably through discussion. :2)If being removed isn't a consequence, I don't know what is. I'm not sure what other "consequences" there could be. I also have to wonder if the goal here is to simply punish alleged misbehaving admins instead of trying to resolve any issues that come up. I'll note the vast majority of support of this proposal is by the person who claims to have been wronged by an admin and their friends- most others are opposed. :3-4)Removing someone's admin status is by definition adversarial, and this idea will not make it any less so, and will in fact introduce more adversity on a regular basis. :5)It is not moot- this idea would turn the process into more of a popularity contest than it is currently, not less. :6)I'm still not sure what is meant by "accountability" that doesn't happen currently through discussion and possible removal. :I probably won't have too much more to say on this page, as it is becoming clear this proposal will not be enacted as written. I will again suggest that we take some cool down time before discussing any other proposals for a clearer process to remove admin status.--31dot 19:57, September 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::conflict - I'm pretty sure there's a snowman quickly melting in hell right now, since the last thing you said I agree with. What hasn't been stated yet is that if there was a decision by administrators to block another admin, that admin would be expected to comply with the block even though they would be able to remove it. That's been the assumption I've always worked under, and just like the "policy" for creating more bureaucrats, I don't see a reason to enshrine this case-by-case informal procedure with legaleze, especially when words can be used to obscure what's being said. But none of that was in this suggestion, and that wasn't the spirit of it either, since this remains an attempt to blah blah blah see above. - 20:02, September 15, 2011 (UTC) Votes for/against *'Support' --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:57, September 14, 2011 (UTC) *I wish to oppose this idea.--31dot 23:55, September 14, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' --Defiant 23:59, September 14, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' Distantlycharmed 00:54, September 15, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose'. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 02:01, September 15, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose'. --Jörg 07:00, September 15, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose' (keeping in mind that policies aren't created by simple majority, anyway). -- Cid Highwind 09:03, September 15, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose' --Delta2373 09:41, September 15, 2011 (UTC) *Cobra expressed opposition above, just posting here for clarity.--31dot 09:43, September 15, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose'. Tom 10:18, September 15, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose'.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 11:08, September 15, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose'--Sennim 11:46, September 15, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose' -- Capricorn 11:48, September 15, 2011 (UTC) (note: I'd like to clarify that I'm judging on the specific proposal, not the conflict that triggered it) *'Oppose' (but please work out a clear system of removing admin status from its abusers) --Pseudohuman 12:39, September 15, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' -- Ltarex 16:36, September 15, 2011 (CET) Resolution